[CF-Devel] patch for spell system
Andreas Vogl
andi.vogl at gmx.net
Sun Feb 17 19:41:53 CST 2002
Mark W. wrote:
>
>
- IDEA: Make spells be objects. One object for each spell
>
you know. [...]
>
In the above example, since all spells are just archetypes,
>
tuning them is just a matter of changing the archetype, not
>
a configuration file.
>
>
If the code is abstract enough, it means that new spells are
>
just a matter of modifying the arch on the map. [...]
Spells being objects sounds cool, but I don't think it
really is the big hit.
o Above all, it's a big amount of work and it's gonna blow up
and complexify the spell code.
o Spell-objects won't make life any more simple for mapmakers.
Okay, the "sp"-values will be gone - but I bet the spell-objects
will again have a hundred attributes that no one ever truely
understands.
o With spell-objects, spells can be modiefied in the maps.
Maybe that's just me, but I think spells should be standards.
There should be a finite amount of spells, so that players
can learn how they work and what to expect of them.
That keeps the game more simple and a lot more intuitive.
Is it really good to have hundred different versions of
the fireball spell? I think not.
Now if spells are standards (instead of objects), they should
still be fine-tuned and balanced. The perfect combination
of damage, speed and duration is often hard to find.
Therefore, the "spellbook"-approach by David Delbecq seems
like a useful thing to me.
Certainly, I do agree that he should have asked on cf-devel
before doing all the work. But at least, he asked before
doing a cvs commit. That's already quite good, isn't it? ;-)
Andreas V.
More information about the crossfire
mailing list